Differences of Voluntary Statement and Custodial Interrogation

Solution Preview

A voluntary statement is an utterance that a suspect that has been arrested for a crime makes to law enforcement. It does not necessarily mean it will be used against you. The city must prove, in bringing this to the attention of the court, that the statement was un-coerced and that the suspect was more or less of sound mind when he made it.

For a custodial interrogation, see the opinion of the Kansas Supreme Court I reproduced below.
First, the case of the State of Kansas v. Schultz, No. 98,727, Supreme Court of Kansas, 2009. In this case, police responded to a grounds keeper's report of marijuana being smoked in an apartment. Two police officers entered. Schultz admitted his usage. Police asked him if they could search the house. He consented, and very soon, produced, quite voluntarily, tons of marijuana, probably enough to keep Ozzy comfortable for a day or two.

Then the police asked Schultz to sign a consent form for further searches. He did so. It seemed likely that he was high at the time. The police did not read him his rights until he got down to the station. The city argued that since Schultz was cooperative and police (according to Schultz himself, very well mannered), that it does not matter, the actions and words of Schultz showed total consent.

The problem was the following: the police officers, at one point, told Schultz that if he did not consent, they would have to go to a judge and get a warrant. They indicated that if he consented, the search would be quick and non-obtrusive. However, with a warrant, a more destructive search would be carried out. It is this distinction that led the State Supreme Court to overturn the local court in that his signature on the written consent form was voluntary.

The Kansas Supreme Court made some interesting statements, including their concept of custodial investigation:
Factors to be considered on the existence of a ...